Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
UK endoscopy trainer survey: perspectives on current endoscopy training delivery, experience, barriers and opportunities
  1. Fraser Brown1,
  2. Alice Weidner2,
  3. Christopher Wells3,
  4. Rumneet Ghumman4,
  5. Susan McConnell5,
  6. Wee Sing Ngu6,
  7. Elizabeth Ratcliffe7,8,
  8. Sharmila Subramaniam9,
  9. Jamie Barbour2
  1. 1 Gastroenterology, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, Hartlepool, UK
  2. 2 Gastroenterology, QE Gateshead, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, UK
  3. 3 North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, Hartlepool, UK
  4. 4 Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, London, UK
  5. 5 County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Darlington, UK
  6. 6 The Dukes' Club, London, UK
  7. 7 University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  8. 8 Colorectal Surgery, Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, Torquay, UK
  9. 9 Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jamie Barbour, Gastroenterology, QE Gateshead, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, UK; jamie.barbour{at}


Objective UK endoscopy training is delivered by trainers possessing well developed endoscopy and teaching skills to help learners perform high-quality endoscopy. Train The Trainer (TTT) courses are effective, but additional trainer support is variable with little formal quality assurance. We performed a survey to map UK endoscopy training, assess trainer perspectives on training delivery and identify factors that would enhance training.

Design/Method An online survey was designed by trainer representatives, in collaboration with the JAG training committee, and collected responses from trainers registered on JAG endoscopy training system e-portfolio from April to June 2022.

Results There were 1024 responses from all trainer disciplines, with 813 (79%) completing TTT courses and 584 (57%) having job planned dedicated training lists (DTLs). Clinical endoscopists most frequently had job-planned DTLs (71%), and DTLs occurring at least weekly (58%). 293 (29%) respondents participated as course faculty. Trainers reported high levels of pre-procedure preparation, effective dialogue and frequent feedback. The DOPS forms were ‘always/often’ completed by 81% of clinical endoscopists, 73% of gastroenterologist and 58% of surgeons. 435 (42%) trainers never had peer feedback. Responses suggested training could improve by protecting training time, attending courses, participating as faculty and receiving feedback from experienced trainers.

Conclusion This survey demonstrates substantial proportions of highly motivated UK trainers who value time spent teaching and learning how to teach. Skills taught on the TTT courses are often actively used in everyday training. Improved trainer course access, protected training time and formal use of existing feedback tools by peers were highlighted as measures that could support trainers’ development.


Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. The anonymous dataset generated from the survey can be made available on reasonable request.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. The anonymous dataset generated from the survey can be made available on reasonable request.

View Full Text


  • Contributors JB, CW and ER planned the original survey. JB, FB, AW and RG devised the draft survey and all authors contributed to the final survey design. Data were analysed by FB, AW, JB and all authors were given the opportunity to comment and advise on the data. FB produced the initial draft manuscript which was then reviewed and edited by AW, CW and JB. All authors then reviewed and contributed to the final manuscript. JB is the guarantor and responsible for the overall content.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.